Advertisement

Sexual Precedent’s Effect on Sexual Consent Communication

  • Malachi WillisEmail author
  • Kristen N. Jozkowski
Original Paper

Abstract

Sexual consent is one’s voluntary, sober, and conscious willingness to engage in a particular sexual behavior with a particular person within a particular context. Sexual precedent theory posits that people believe that engaging in consensual sex at one point in time implies consent to later sexual encounters with that person. By assuming consent once a sexual precedent is set, people may rely less on communication cues. We sought to provide quantitative support for the claim that sexual precedent influences sexual consent in people’s sexual relationships. To capture variability across sexual experiences, we collected daily sexual behavior data from each participant (n = 84) over a period of 30 days. We found a curvilinear relationship between sexual history with a partner and how people perceived consent during sexual activity with that partner (p = .003, ∆R2 = .089). A piecewise regression revealed that participants were less likely to report consent communication cues as sexual precedent increased until about 575 previous sexual behaviors (p = .003, R2 = .122); after this point, participants were more likely to report consent communication cues as sexual precedent increased (p = .028, R2 = .179). Overall, we provide the first quantitative evidence that consent conceptualization varies both within the person and across relationships regarding sexual precedent. In our discussion, we emphasize that sexual consent is contextual and cannot be assumed even after previous sexual encounters.

Keywords

Sexual consent Sexual precedent Communication 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded, in part, by the Doug Kirby Adolescent Sexual Health Research Grant from the Rural Center for AIDS/STD Prevention, Indiana University of Public Health-Bloomington.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Beres, M. A. (2007). ‘Spontaneous’ sexual consent: An analysis of sexual consent literature. Feminism and Psychology, 17, 93–108.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353507072914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beres, M. (2010). Sexual miscommunication? Untangling assumptions about sexual communication between casual sex partners. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 12, 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13691050903075226.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Beres, M. A. (2014). Rethinking the concept of consent for anti-sexual violence activism and education. Feminism and Psychology, 24, 373–389.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353514539652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beres, M. A., Herold, E., & Maitland, S. B. (2004). Sexual consent behaviors in same-sex relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33, 475–486.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ASEB.0000037428.41757.10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.  https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burkett, M., & Hamilton, K. (2012). Postfeminist sexual agency: Young women’s negotiations of sexual consent. Sexualities, 15, 815–833.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460712454076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byers, E. S., Henderson, J., & Hobson, K. M. (2009). University students’ definitions of sexual abstinence and having sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 665–674.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9289-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, R. D. (1977). Detection of influential observation in linear regression. Technometrics, 19, 15–18.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1977.10489493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dripps, D. (1996). For a negative, normative model of consent, with a comment on preference-skepticism. Legal Theory, 2, 113–120.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325200000422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foubert, J. D., Garner, D. N., & Thaxter, P. J. (2006). An exploration of fraternity culture: Implications for programs to address alcohol-related sexual assault. College Student Journal, 40, 361–373.Google Scholar
  12. Hall, D. S. (1998). Consent for sexual behavior in a college student population. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 1, 1–16. Retrieved from http://www.ejhs.org/volume1/consent1.htm.
  13. Hickman, S. E., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (1999). “By the semi-mystical appearance of a condom”: How young women and men communicate sexual consent in heterosexual situations. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 258–272.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909551996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Humphreys, T. (2007). Perceptions of sexual consent: The impact of relationship history and gender. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 307–315.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490701586706.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Humphreys, T. P., & Brousseau, M. M. (2010). The Sexual Consent Scale–Revised: Development, reliability, and preliminary validity. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 420–428.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490903151358.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Humphreys, T., & Herold, E. (2007). Sexual consent in heterosexual relationships: Development of a new measure. Sex Roles, 57, 305–315.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9264-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jessup, G., Bian, S., Chen, Y. W., & Bundy, A. C. (2012). Manual of P.I.E.L. survey application [iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad/iPad mini Application]. Sydney: The University of Sydney.Google Scholar
  18. Jozkowski, K. N. (2015). Barriers to affirmative consent policies and the need for affirmative sexuality. University of the Pacific Law Review, 47, 741–772.Google Scholar
  19. Jozkowski, K. N., & Peterson, Z. D. (2013). College students and sexual consent: Unique insights. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 517–523.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.700739.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Jozkowski, K. N., Peterson, Z. D., Sanders, S. A., Dennis, B., & Reece, M. (2014a). Gender differences in heterosexual college students’ conceptualizations and indicators of sexual consent: Implications for contemporary sexual assault prevention education. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 904–916.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.792326.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Jozkowski, K. N., Sanders, S., Peterson, Z. D., Dennis, B., & Reece, M. (2014b). Consenting to sexual activity: The development and psychometric assessment of dual measures of consent. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 437–450.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0225-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jozkowski, K. N., & Wiersma, J. D. (2015). Does drinking alcohol prior to sexual activity influence college students’ consent? International Journal of Sexual Health, 27, 156–174.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2014.951505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Katz, J., & Moore, J. (2013). Bystander education training for campus sexual assault prevention: An initial meta-analysis. Violence and Victims, 28, 1054–1067.  https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-12-00113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Livingston, J. A., Buddie, A. M., Testa, M., & VanZile-Tamsen, C. (2004). The role of sexual precedence in verbal sexual coercion. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 287–297.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00146.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marcantonio, T., Jozkowski, K. N., & Wiersma-Mosley, J. (2018). The influence of partner status and sexual behavior on college women’s consent communication and feelings. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623x.2018.1474410.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Marsh, L. C., & Cormier, D. R. (2001). Spline regression models. Sage University Papers Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 7, 1–75.Google Scholar
  27. McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22, 276–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Monson, C. M., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & Binderup, T. (2000). Does “no” really mean “no” after you say “yes”? Attributions about date and marital rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 1156–1174.  https://doi.org/10.1177/088626000015011003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Muehlenhard, C. L., Humphreys, T. P., Jozkowski, K. N., & Peterson, Z. D. (2016). The complexities of sexual consent among college students: A conceptual and empirical review. Journal of Sex Research, 53, 457–487.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1146651.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Muehlenhard, C. L., & Peterson, Z. D. (2005). Wanting and not wanting sex: The missing discourse of ambivalence. Feminism and Psychology, 15, 15–20.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959-353505049698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Neuendorf, K. A. (2011). Content analysis: A methodological primer for gender research. Sex Roles, 64, 276–289.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9893-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peterson, Z. D., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (2007). Conceptualizing the “wantedness” of women’s consensual and nonconsensual sexual experiences: Implications for how women label their experiences with rape. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 72–88.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490709336794.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Sanders, S. A., Hill, B. J., Yarber, W. L., Graham, C. A., Crosby, R. A., & Milhausen, R. R. (2010). Misclassification bias: Diversity in conceptualisations about having ‘had sex’. Sexual Health, 7, 31–34.  https://doi.org/10.1071/SH09068.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Sanders, S. A., & Reinisch, J. M. (1999). Would you say you “had sex” if…? Journal of the American Medical Association, 281, 275–277.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.281.3.275.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Satinsky, S., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2015). Female sexual subjectivity and verbal consent to receiving oral sex. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 41, 413–426.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2014.918065.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Shotland, R. L., & Goodstein, L. (1992). Sexual precedence reduces the perceived legitimacy of sexual refusal: An examination of attributions concerning date rape and consensual sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 756–764.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292186012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Health, Human Performance, and RecreationUniversity of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA
  2. 2.The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and ReproductionIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations